If I steal 100 billion dollars from the US treasury, and return it 10 years later, is it not still theft?

Give me a break! :confuse:

I'd of charged Chrysler 100% interest rates and required collateral for loans. I'm sure the gov't was far nicer with there terms than the average person would have been, otherwise, they'd of received loans from the private market.

The thing that got me most was that all the hubbub on here about many other cars, but when CR showed they didn't even test as well as the "lame" Malibu (as it's been called on here)--the silence was deafening.

Listen, the '08 'Bu was the first significant family sedan GM produced in DECADES, afaic. Your '11 was a great car as well. But the facts remain before'08, the 'Bu was disastrous vs. the competition, much like all GM cars were until VERY RECENTLY. Then, to refresh it with what we see now is, well, SAME OLD GM.

Re-Do....perhaps someday, GM will get it right the first time. But that hope is tenuous, at best!

Their only real complaints were the tight back seat and the relatively high price.

EXACTLY! A FAMILY sedan that doesn't fit a family and then that good 'ole GM pricing system that begs for HUGE incentives...because the product does not meet the value proposition in the market, in the first place.

Buick and GMC don't share any product, do they--other than a single SUV? Rather apples and oranges.

OK, your right. Let's try Chevy and GMC. Use that one to compare against HyunKia.

Apples/Apples. :P

There is one overriding reason why the West Point, Ga. assembled Optima is Kia&#146;s best seller: value for the dollar. And don&#146;t forget the long 10-year, 100,000-mile limited powertrain warranty and 5-year, 50,000-mile basic coverage. Not to mention a &#147;recommended&#148; rating from Consumer Reports.

As I recall Chryslers recent loans were at a higher interest rate than they could get once money in the private sector was available again, this was the reason they got private sector financing to pay off their government loans as quickly as possible. I know you don't like them ( with reason) but at least in the second bailout the interest rate was high ( not 100% like you want ( loan sharking anyone) but still higher than normal, if they had been able to get financing from another source I think they would have) ( on the other hand I don't recall of the got additional money above and beyond the loans like GM did). In any case as far as I know their money has been repaid with whatever interest was owed

Man, with that excellent warranty (although Honda runs an entire commercial around here goofing on a long warranty--WTH?!), it's too bad apparently they can't engineer a base-model Optima that tests better than the new "lame" Malibu.

That '56 Chevy is a lovely car and a favorite Chevy of mine in a favorite color scheme of mine, but there was no such thing as a '56 Chevy Biscayne.

I might add, I still believe that there is no sane reason whatsoever why a Chevy version of a GMC product should have any reliability difference whatsoever from the GMC.

I'd have to dig to find the link/reference, but a friend sends me online "Automotive News" clips every so often and in the last month he sent one that said that Detroit has 92% of the truck market share. It suddenly became so much more apparent to me why they focus so much on trucks.

I'd have to dig to find the link/reference, but a friend sends me online "Automotive News" clips every so often and in the last month he sent one that said that Detroit has 92% of the truck market share. It suddenly became so much more apparent to me why they focus so much on trucks.

That's one area where Detroit dominates and where the vast majority of the profits come from.

No question I'd buy a domestic pickup, but with cars it wouldn't be likely.

I might add, I still believe that there is no sane reason whatsoever why a Chevy version of a GMC product should have any reliability difference whatsoever from the GMC.

There is definitely a difference between Chevy and GMC besides appearance. What is it? Quality, reliability, closer tolerances, better components? Why would GM have spent many millions on commercials over the years telling us that GMC is "Professional Grade".

I might add, I still believe that there is no sane reason whatsoever why a Chevy version of a GMC product should have any reliability difference whatsoever from the GMC.

Do buyers equip GMC with more options and electronics perhaps, or do they sell a much greater proportion of heavy duty trucks at GMC than Chevy? Otherwise, it may well be an aberration. Probably sampling error like too few GMC responses, or possibly GMC owners less/more inclined to report problems because they're embarrassed that they paid more than the Chevy?

A newspaper in our region reported that Chevy Cruze came in fourth in 2012 sales in compact car segment. The Honda Civic, the benchmark auto for many years, was first with 317,909. The Toyota Corolla was second at 290,947. The Ford Focus was 245,992. The Chevy Cruze was 237,758. Elantra, Sentra and Forte came in at 202,034, 106,395 and 75,681 respectively.

Newspaper said that Civic model has been offered by Honda for 40 years.

Chevrolet has gone through and discarded many small/compact car models in the last 40 or so years. Vega, Chevette, Cavalier, Cobalt. Can GM or Chevrolet ever unseat Honda Civic as the standard, the benchmark. The Saturn experiment did not work. Perhaps Cruze will eventually succeed.

For years, GM has been telling us that GMC was "Professional Grade". Is that supposed to mean it is better in one or more ways than their other offerings with Chevrolet? Or, was GM trying to suggest that GMC, rather than Chevrolet, was Professional Grade in that professionals, building contractors, supervisors, ranch foremen, etc drove GMC trucks and mere workers, carpenters, bricklayers, etc drove Chevrolets. Was GM trying to set up a class distinction?

There was an article in this Monty's BMWCCA (BMW Car Club) Roundel magazine covering a comparison between the latest M3 and ZL1 performed at Lime Rock Park.

Overall, the car's likes/dislikes were almost identical, but the writer preferred the ZL1's manual transmission and brakes, but disliked the limited field of view provided by the ZL1 and some of the interior ergonomics. Overall, the writer said the ZL1 was a "great value for the money".

A newspaper in our region reported that Chevy Cruze came in fourth in 2012 sales in compact car segment. The Honda Civic, the benchmark auto for many years, was first with 317,909. The Toyota Corolla was second at 290,947. The Ford Focus was 245,992. The Chevy Cruze was 237,758. Elantra, Sentra and Forte came in at 202,034, 106,395 and 75,681 respectively.

I'm still amazed how many Corollas sell, mainly due to how outdated it is in comparison to competitive models.

Of course, they have really targeted their market and advertise it using terms like "reliable, affordable, economical".

Any model that sells over 200K a year is doing well in today's competitive market.